Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks and Recreation - 02/11/1980 1980 FEBRUARY 4 !, 6 , 11 MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE x .APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION C MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1980 7:30 P.M. , CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Anderson, Chairperson; David Anderson, Steve Fifield, Robert Johnson, George Tangen, Larry VanMeter COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kruell COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Robert Lambert, Director of Community Services I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. , by Chairperson Richard Anderson. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Additions: V.A. Report of Commissioner, Acid Rain - Fifield VII.D. Plans for Extension of CSAH 62 - Lambert MOTION: R.Anderson moved, and Fifield seconded, to approve the agenda, as published, with the additions. Motion passed unanimously. III. MINUTES OF JANUARY 21 MEETING Changes: Pg. 2,paras.9&1O: Eliminate entire paragraphs. Pg. 2,para.11: Change "green grass areas" to "manicured grass". Pg. 7,para.3: Change "millions" to "thousands". Pg. 7,para.8: Change to D. Anderson made motion and R. Anderson seconded. Pg. 8,para.4: Change to D. Anderson made motion. IV. PETITIONS REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Report of Commissioner - Acid Rain Fifield recently attended the "Northwoods Region Acid Rain Conference". He invited questions by Commission members regarding this subject. Fifield reported that the Superior National Forest Boundary Waters is really the only part of Minnesota affected by the aoid rain issue and is not at a serious stage. Lambert asked if there were any known biological changes taking place yet. Fifield stated that there was more money and organization needed in this area, but so far no affects are noticed in the Superior National do I Forest area. B. Reports of Staff C 1. Status of Anderson Lakes Park and Bryant Lake Park Lambert reported that the Council has reviewed this proposal and shared some of the concerns this Commission had, but no action would r Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved February 4, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -2- be taken until the dollar figures were available. Now those figures are available (Staff memo of 1-31-80) and are quite accurate based on careful compiling by Staff. Lambert explained that more money was received on Bryant Lake Park: than was spent. This occurred because the City billed the Metro Council for more than was spent upgrading the park so there would be finds to secure other appraisals. Therefore the City owes the Metro Council on this park. As of this date the net reimbursement to the City for Anderson Lakes Park and Bryant Lake Park is $189,065.94• D. Anderson wondered if it would be necessary and appropriate to add to the Commission motion of January 21, 1980 meeting, that the Anderson Lakes Park be named the Blaoklook Interpretive area. Lambert said the Metro Commission is already committed to this that would not be a problem. Tangen questioned whether the City d.id, in fact, control the surface water of Bryant Lake as stated in the Staff memo (1-31-80). Lambert pointed out that any public water body within the City is under City control. Even though they are State public waters, the City can put its own restrictions on them. He said he would check on this however, to make sure. 2. Community Center Interview Process Lambert reported that at the January 24, 1980, Community Center Committee meeting, all 16 architect applications submitted were reviewed by the Committee members and each member rated their top 6 choices as follows: 7 points for lot choice 6 points for 2nd choice 5 points for 3rd choice eta. The points were then totalled and the following 4 firms came out well ahead of the others in terms of total points: Armstrong, Torseth, Skold & Rydeen, Inc. Hammel Green and Abrahmson, Inc. Smiley Glotter Associates BWBR Architects There will be another Committee meeting to interview these 4 firms on Wednesday, February 6, 1980. This meeting will narrow the selection to two firms for recommendation to the Council. Lambert said the Committee felt in order to save time in the selection process, Commission and Council members are encouraged to attend this February 6th meeting. The Committee feels it very important to have an architect hired by March 1, 1980 in order to be using the facility by the projected 1981-82 school year. Lambert also pointed out that all of the final 4 firms have excellent reputations for working within the budget and doing quality work. Each has an equal chance going into the interview. The Commission should have its recommendation to the Council �, by February 19, 1980. approved February 4, 1980 Minutes - Parks, Recreation & a-3- Natural Resources Commission D. Anderson suggested the Commission have a special meeting on this following the Community Center Committee meeting issue immediately February 6, 19 All agreed this would be the best idea due to the mmission member who cannot attend tight time schedule. The only Co the meeting is Tangeu. MOTION: D. Anderson moved that the Commission hold a special meeting after the Community Center Committee on Wednesday, February 6, 1980. The purpose architectcommendation on an of this meeting will be to make a re Johnson and carried unanimously- Council. The motion was secon Y DISCUSSION: Tangen asked Lambert and R. Anderson if they felt, as Committeeon ; members, a decision would be made on theeCommitteearchitect iss BO anxiousst Wednesday move the night (Feb.6). Lambert said y ess but the Committee decision on. R. Anderson felt it was hard to second gu , he Center realizes thousands of dollars could be saved by cons good ch ice, therefore ' this year, and any 4 of the final firms would be a an immediate decision is desireable. 3. Committee Center Committee Report Already gone over. 4• Council Report ommission Lease - the Council had the following 1) Metropolitan Airports C concerns: termination a. In the 3 year, renewable lease, there is a 9A day clause (termination by either party) that the Council would like removed from the lease. damnify them on any accidents that might b. MAC asked the City of in occur on the property so they could not be sued. The City, by law, does not have the right to indemnify anyone. c. MAC asked the City to get signatures from all parents of children using the park stating that they weree il aware this is MAClik prop rt and the City is just leasing i . ee this section removed from the lease. 2) The Council feels the same architect hired to design the Community Center should design the Round Lake park building. 3) Council accepted the deed on the Brown property. Lambert mentioned that at the January 21 , 1980 Commission meeting he thought the old Round Lake Park building would have to be the old building removed this Spring. After reviewing the situation again, h could remain for at The least part of the old building sitesOnmer theand infield of ballfield and y until the new the outfield couldd still be graded building is up. and seeded with the building standing. ert still Fifield asked when grading would projected completionhdate for lgrading has to approve the bidding but p is August 15, 1980. D. Anderson asked if there would be a problem of traffic on the newly graded/seeded outfield if the park building Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved February 4, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -4- was kept in. use. Lambert said the traffic would be channelled by putting a snow fence. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Park Use Ordinance .Lambert presented a draft of the City's Park Use Ordinance, and suggested that the Commission provide input as to what should and should not be included. After the Commission makes recommendations the Staff will redraft. The following suggestions were made by Commission members: 1) R. Anderson - Section 4, #2 - Use the term "littering" instead of "dumping". 2) R. Anderson - Section 10, #4 - Felt floating (not tipping over) on an air mattress outside of beach areas (referred to as "non-designated" -areas in the Park Use Ordinance) should be permitted. D. Anderson felt that it might cause problems to specify in the ordinance this was permissible, from a liability standpoint, and maybe it would be best just not to specify swimming restrictions for non-designated areas. 3) R. Anderson - Section 11 , #4o - "Drinking" should also be mentioned. 146TION: D. Anderson moved that the aforementioned changes to the Park Use Ordinance be drafted and sent to the Council. The Commission reminds the Council that the Park Use Ordinance came before them in 1977 and strongly urges the Council to take action at this time. R. Johnson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. DISCUSSION: Lambert said the Ordinance will come back to the Commission from the City Attorney. Tangen felt perhaps the Commission should have a public hearing on the Park Use Ordinance rather than the Council. Lambert checked into Bluff Ordinances as the Commission requested. He contacted the head Planner at Bloomington and found they had no ordinance restricting development of bluffs and handled by policy rather than ordinance. They discourage and control development by where they put the sewer lines in. R. Anderson asked what control Eden Prairie has on bluff construotion, and Lambert said only a slope ordinance and no real control for building on the bluff. The City's only way to protect the bluffs is in the review process when the developer comes in with a plat. Lambert couldn't see a problem for some time, until water and sewer come in, and then there still is the review process. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. 1970 Tax_Forfeited Lands Lambert referred to the list of Tax Forfeited Lands in Staff memo of 1-28-80. Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved February 4, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -5- MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend to the Council acquisition of all of the tax forfeited parcels for public use and recommends the Council approve Resolution No. R80-25. D. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Recess was called at 8:55 P.m- B. Eden Prairie in Action The Commission members agreed to commit their time to this project as follows: Saturday, March 1 12:00 - 2:30 p.m. D. Anderson (not firm-will stand committed unless notifies staff otherwise) 2:30 - 5:00 p.m. R. Johnson Sunday, March 2 9:00 - 10:30 a.m.. R. Anderson 10:30 - 12:00 VanMeter 12:00 - 3:00 p.m. Contact Kruell for this shift (D. Anderson left the meeting at 9:00 p.m.) C. Swedlund Property on Riley Lake Lambert reported he recently walked the property with Mrs. Swedlund and felt it was beautiful, but expensive at $400,000.00. CR. Anderson said. the Commission made an offer on the property 7 years ago when it was available but missed out. He feels it is a very choice piece of property and the City should try to get it. Perhaps use money from selling Bryant Lake Park or money from Conservancy Fund or apply for funding. Lambert pointed out the only funding possible is LAWCON and their rules have changed. No suburban community will be approved for more than one grant per year. The City is already committed to Mitchell Lake/Miller Park for funding in 1980 and 1981. Tangen said the property is limited to 2 parcels because of present zoning ,and road frontage, and would an option be considered. Lambert felt Swedlund *.ranted the money at time of purchase. Tangen felt the property was beautiful and although development of it probably couldn't occur for a while because of other park commitments, the City would regret letting this go a second time. VanMeter asked if all the buildings on the site would be expensive to maintain. Lambert said only about 4 of the 10 or 12 buildings were in good enough condition to stay. C. Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved February 4, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -6- MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend that the Council be made aware of the opportunity to obtain the Swedlund Property on Riley Lake. The Commission feels this is a potentially outstanding property for park purposes and asks the Council if it is feasible for the City to look into the possible acquisition of the property. The Commission also points out this is the City's second opportunity to purchase this property. VanMeter seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. D. Plans for Extension of CSAH 62 Lambert reported that Hennepin County is requesting the City to consider an extension of CSAH 62. Previous plans showed the Crosstown bridged over Rowland Road and now they are proposing Rowland Road going over the Crosstown. Lambert feels the Commission should comment on bike trails across this section of CSAH 62 as project for the future. R. Anderson felt that trailways was a concern, as well as Beach Road and the erosion and contamination the highway might cause to Bryant Lake. He felt more extensive review of plans is necessary. MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend that the Commission would like to have an opportunity to review plans for extensions of CSAH 62 and would they_ forward their comments to the Council. Fifield seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Steve Fifield announced this was his last meeting as a Commission member, and thanked everyone he served with. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carrie Tietz Recording Secretary 1� APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING I WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1980 11:40 P.M. FIRE STATION COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Anderson, Chairperson; Dave Anderson, Steve Fifield, Robert Johnson, Larry VanMeter COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services i The special meeting was called for the purpose of considering the recommendation from the Community Center Committee. The Community Center Committee recommended the firms of Smiley Glotter Associates and Armstrong, Torseth, 5kold and Rydeen to the Commission. MOTION: David Anderson moved that the Commission vote for 2 out of the four firms interviewed and they would be taken in rank, the most votes would be #1 and second greatest number of votes would be #2. Seconded by Fifield. Motion passed unanimously. Commission vote: BWBR 1st and Smiley Glotter .Associates 2nd. Dave Anderson - Smiley Glotter Associates BWBR Robert Johnson - Smiley Glotter Associates BWBR Larry VanMeter - BWBR Smiley Glotter Associates Steve Fifield - BWBR ATSR Dick Anderson - ATSR Green Hammel Abrahamson, Inc. Respectfully Submitted, Marlys Dahl Recording Secretary I UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CODQMITY CENTER COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1980 7:00 P.M. FIRE STATION j David Osterholt, Chairperson; Richard Anderson, COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: j Richard Buretta, Arnie Johnson, Robert Lambert, Lyle Shaw, Jerry Wigen COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Dave Anderson, Steve Fifield, Robert Johnson, Larry VanMeter COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor; Dean Edstrom Lambert called the meeting to order at 7:15 P.M. The purpose of the meeting was to interview the four architectural firms that were selected as finalists for the Community Center. BWBR Architects - Del Erickson Del Erickson introduced their firm which has been involved in recreational facilities since the early 70's. The firm has done both indoor and outdoor swimming facilities. Erickson referred the committee to their brochure for information on the projects they have designed. Erickson explained that if their firm was awarded the contract, he would serve as principal in charge and Bob Seeger would be the project manager. Through the process of the design they would keep the City involved and informed on decisions to be made. Erickson spoke on the pros and cons of an attached facility. Common use of the building wall would affect the existing shool structure - additional structural work would be needed. If the building is attached directly to the school, matching of the exterior would be important. The big advantage to an attached structure would be reduction of the exterior wall. One drawback would be limitation for the expansion of the school facility. Erickson felt that a detached facility would add some extra cost for a link between the buildings, but would allow a better possibility for expansion. Erickson felt that on any project the highest priority in regard to energy was conservation. He felt the site offers potential earth sheltering and placement of insulation is important. Also, the orientation of openings - use of windows oriented to the south would be a solar collector of energy. Use of building systems themselves could be used from other parts of the building for heating. Lambert asked how much of the ice cooling system would be able to heat the building. Erickson felt the ice compressors could provide half of the heating requirement and there would be flexibility to utilize heat where it was needed most - pool heating, etc. Anderson asked if there are any figures on cost savings using heat off the compressor. Erickson said there is a savings. i iI l �: Community Center Committee -2- February 6, 1980 I ' Wigen asked Erickson if they could design a building within the 2.5 million budget. Erickson said 40-45,000 sq. ft. would be approximately 2 million and a $200,000 contingency should be added to that figure. Erickson felt that the building should be designed with expansion in mind, but do not restrict the quality of the structure. Wigen asked what is the normal size of a pool room facility. Erickson repied 9-10,000 sq. ft. for 6 lanes and an 8 lane would add 2,000 sq. ft. Approximately s 15,000 sq. ft. total for locker rooms, etc. Osterholt asked with the 2 million cost and $200,000 contingency, what did they have in mind for the 2 million. Erickson said texture block for the exterior. Osterholt questioned if the structure were separate from the school building, what is the maximum distance. Erickson said he doesn't suggest a corridor over 100' . Erickson explained that moveable seating costs about twice as much as fixed. Some of the options to be considered are less seating, smaller pool, less in way of finishes. Osterholt asked how much use of the common facilities is possible. Erickson said it is conceivable to use common locker rooms, restrooms, etc. Erickson asked if there had been any thought on not making this a truly multi �_. purpose facility. Lambert explained that the Bond Referendum always talked in- terms of a multi use facility. Erickson explained that in a truly multi purpose facility air conditioning, acoustics and etc. would need to be considered. Erickson explained it was beneficial to pay hourly fees for the architects services - the architect is paid for their time, with a lump sum or percentage to complete the cost of the project - 6-7% seems appropriate at this point. Community Center Committee -3- February 6, 1980 SMILEY GLOTTER ASSOCIATION - 8:00 P.M. (start 8:15) I Smiley stated that their firm philosophy is excellence, and that they would stay with the project from beginning to end. He explained that the budget would be tight, but much can be achieved with the bare raw materials - panels, color, seat colors, graphics, lighting, paint and etc. He showed several slides indicating these possibilities. The Smiley Glotter firm won an energy award in 1972, have five designs awards, and 2 energy awards, 1 national and one regional. Smiley presented scheme A and B site plans for the proposed center. Scheme A would take advantage of the south facing slope located to the north and east with a upper entry level to the pool and arena area. The lower level would utilize the school locker room, etc. Scheme B was a 1 story facility with the school locker room facilities as the entry. A corridor leads to the pool area or ice area. Simley explained that ice area and swim pool areas are large users of energy. The pool needs to be maintained at 80-82 degrees and the arena area needs heat under the slab to keep the ground from heaving. He explained that an exchange of energy can be used for heating. ! Time Phase: September 1, 1981 completion i, March 1, 1980 let contract with architect March 15, 1980 program finalized April 15, 1980 schematic plans July 15, 1980 bidding August 15, 1980 contractors, building construction Smiley explained that the architectural fees could be lump sum or by the hour (hourly cheaper) with a 6% construction fee. Johnson asked if either of the schemes presented come within the 2.5 million dollar budget. Smily replied no. He said needs should be defined. What is absolutely necessary? What are the alternatives - fixed seating or movable? Lambert asked what the square footage is on scheme A. Smiley said it was 6-7,000 square feet larger than scheme B which is 39,000 sq. ft. Cost for scheme B would be 2.6 million - total package. Mayor Penzel asked if they had taken into consideration earth sheltering. Smiley said yes, but this requires bringing in fill, etc. , and added structural costs. Cost wise it would be better to add more insulation for energy purposes. Edstrom asked if they had considered solar energy. Smiley replied yes, but this is very costly. Solar energy could be added at a later date, however. He explained that passive solar energy is not good in pool areas because of high humidity, and in the arena area it could cause one frozen area and one wet area. i I Community Center Committee -4- February 6, 1980 Wigen questioned the advantage of the Brim System over the other type of cooling for the arena area. Smiley said that with the Brim System anyone can service and more competitive costs are available. Smiley closed the presentation saying that their firm had a great interest in the project and they have gone to great length in time and cost to make their presentation. HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC. - 9:00 P.M. The presentation was given by Wes Sorensen, Partner-in-Charge, Gary Reetz, Project Architect; Bob Parupsky, Mechanical Engineer. I ' Sorensen explained that the firm has 135 employees and is a self contained firm with mchanical, electrical, etc. The firm has a depth of experience in educational and recreational facilities. Sorensen showed a site plan of the school with location of the Community Center. The Center was partially earth sheltered, probably not attached to the existing wall, however this is possible. The site showed additional parking for 100 cars. Sorensen suggested that because of the proximity to the school, visually it would be better to use the high school exterior; however, the facility would have its own identity. Sorensen spoke to earth sheltering and heat recovery from ice making equipment in regard to energy conservation. He suggested on the arena side to use a modular boiler concept where only the boilers needed at one time are required to heat. He also suggested considering infra red over the heating area in the area for ice events. Sorensen showed slides of several variations of pool designs, sizes and shapes. Also, a pool with a separate diving tank area. Sorensen said that their professional services are both competitive and negotiable. He proposed a percentage of construction cost ranging from 6.4% to 6.8% based on the AIA Standard Form of Agreement. Program consultation would be provided on a hourly basis. Lambert asked what are some of the options to bring the facility within the 2.5 million dollar budget. Sorensen replied that depends on to what extent the school will share locker facilities, and that materials used a also a big factor in regard to costs. He recommended a ceramic tile tank liner for the pool (approximate cost $60-70,000) . The exterior wall material is also a big factor in considering costs. Seating capacity is important, the plant shows 44,000 sq. ft. with seating for 1,200. Osterholt asked what the Apple Valley facility would cost today. Sorensen reported $1.6-1.7 million. It was 41.1 to start. l Community Center Committee -5- February 6, 1980 Osterholt asked if on the Eden Prairie proposal there is any merit in detaching the arena facility. Sorensen said the locker rooms are oriented to the south but if they were to the east it may be possible. Code requires entry to the pool area must be thru shower area. Osterholt questioned the use of solar energy. Sorensen replied it is very costly. Sorensen explained that passive solar energy gain to the south is 1 very possible (triple glazing) . Osterholt asked about earth sheltering vs insulation. Sorensen felt that artifical earth sheltering and earth sheltering can lead to problems. He recommened a cavity wall with good insulation. Sorensen explained that solar energy is very costly unless you can obtain grant- assistance, but he would recommend a design with potential future installation. Sorensen explained there would be an advantage energy wise for the facilities to share a common wall. There would be a 20 gal. fuel savings per sq. ft. of common wall shared (both school and community center) . Wigen asked if there is a common figure used to figure the exterior cost of the building. Sorensen relied $3-3.50 per sq. ft. exterior surface. There is a savings in pre•-fab panel over concrete. Osterholt asked is there is a savings to put the diving area in the pool rather than a separate tank. Sorensen said there would be a reduction in room size and the tank and filter are costly, however a separate diving tank is a safety factor. C_ ARMSTRONG, TORSETH, SKOLD AND RYDEEN, INC. - 9:50 P.M. Jim Rydeen made the presentation. Please refer to the attached outline in regard to: Connection to the High School, Energy Saving Ideas, Expansion Capabilities, Outline Size of Building and Exterior Materials with Budget, and Fee. During the question and answer period, Johnson asked if their propsoal included no seating. Rydeen indicated that it did not. Rydeen said it would take a lot of coordination (working back and forth to accomplish within the budget) . Rydeen also reported that a September bid would mean winter construction with an added 15% cost. Johnson asked if there could be an 8 lane pool within the 2.5 million dollar budget. Rydeen said no. Wigen questioned if it would be possible to use used equipment in the facility for ice making. Rydeen indicated that this is a possibility. l ARMSTRONG.TORSETH,SKOLD AND RYDEEN,INC. ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS 4901 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY MINNEAPOLISNINNESOTA (612)545-3731 EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER i 1. CONNECTIOIJ 'rO HIGH SCHOOL The answer' to this question can only be determined after you have hired an t' and effort required to research Architect who can devote the amount of time q a they existing conditions regarding site, building and code, to analyze the functional, visual and cost implications; and to evaluate all factors. The feasibility of a connection depends upon a variety of factors. Perhaps, two of c •�� the most important are the multi-use of the pool and arena by the High .school through- out the school day and tying into an existing facility to save costs resulting from connections to utilities and use of facilities such as lockers, showers, etc. Our limited involvement with your project indicates several pros/cons involving a j connection. to the 'nigh School: A. Link Connection (assume pool deck and arena floor level can be either snatching lowest of High School or as desired for exterior entrance.) PR OS - Multi-use by school - Utilize available utilities (apparently the boiler room and all utilities are on west end of existing building - Share existing parking and driveway - Separating the buildings may allow a different exterior material or visual appearance to the new building. - Avoid code updating to existing - Less cost to build into hillside (retaining walls, surface water drainage) - Accommodate handicapped (main entry.and arena/pool deck on same level) - Service entry to the community center 1 CONS - Additional cost of connecting link - New building requires new locker /shower rooms - Less hillside to build into for energy conservation - Perhaps need new driveway for drop off and additional parking - Grading and drainage of "courtyard" i a i 4 Kenneth L.Skold•John C.Torseth•James E.Rydeen•Kenneth E.Grabow•Lenoy H.Palmquist•Harold E.Shull•Donald L.Yungner 1jj r Page 2 B. Adjacent Connection (assume pool deck and arena floor at lower floor level�of High School. PR OS - Multi-use by school - Utilize available utilities (apparently the boiler room and all utlities are on the west end of the existing building) - Share existing parking and driveway - Possibility of re-using existing boys locker/shower room save construction costs, build only new girls locker/shower - Build into existing hillside for energy conservation - less exterior wall - Closer connection to utilities CONS -Match existing materials for exterior appearance - Additional cost to underpin existing foundation - Code updating for existing buildings (depends upon type of construction and occupancy). - Adjacent roof designed for adequate roof loads - Handicapped accommodations may be required at upper level entry for public by ramp or elevator if pool deck and arena level matches lowest level of High School II. ENERGY SAVING IDEAS Our experience indicates the initial construction costs are increased by incorporating energy conservation features. The Life Cycle Cost analysis is applied to determine the most beneficial features to be incorporated into the project. A. Building Envelope - State Requirements Wall U = .28 min. Roof U = .06 min. Building envalope on our recent projects has exceeded State minimum.requirements for energy conservation. Pool Arena Wall 58%+ 19%+ Roof 10%+ 31%+ B. Earth Berming - build into available hillside C. Mechanical Heat Reclaim Units for Locker Room and Pool Room Exhaust Four units - seven year payback D. Mechanical - re-use heat generated by ice refrigeration system to heat domestic water and provide heat under ice sheet to avoid deep frost penetration - any excess used for arena heat. E. Mechanical - air condition arena building for summer use by utilizing ice refrigeration system (save capital investment). Page 3 F. Mechanical - Solar collectors for pool (Hopkins West - 6 lanes) - Initial cost for system - $87,000 { r - Simple payback - 25.5 years - Accelerated payback - 9.5 years G . Mechanical - high efficiency motors H. Electrical - high pressure sodium lighting for pool - Metal halide for arena - Alternate switching for lights I. Electrical - Capacitors on motors to control power factor III. EXPANSION CAPABILITIES of other community recreation facilities and possibly of inclusion within present budget. The initial programming and schematic design should include ":vaster planning)" for all activities desired in the facility. The logical pattern for planned expansion affects the planning requirements and future cost implications. Our knowledge of your Phase I needs of pool and arena indicates additional facilities such as racquetball courts, exercise room, meeting rooms, are difficult within your stated budget. You should consider the'possibility of taking alternate bids on some of these items in case you receive favorable bids on the pool and arena; then other items could be added. The New Ulm Family Recreation Center is an �. excellent example of bidding. They now have the opportuntiy to include four racquetball courts, exercise roam and meeting rooms at a very reasonable cost. IV. OUTLINE SIZE OF BUILDING AND EXTERIOR MATERIALS WITH BUDGET j I The following information is based upon our knowledge of your needs. A successful program and design must engage client and Architect as a team. Programming is the prelude to design. Programming seeks out and defines the client's facility problems. Planning and design solve them. We have developed an orderly framework for programming which assures that all points with any bearing are brought out and serves to classify and document, in a methodical way, the information required by the team later on to solve the problem system- atically in the design stage. We believe a building should be designed and equipped with the types of materials and systems that generate beneficial Life Cycle Costing in low maintenance, durability, longivity, etc. Our experience indicates all materials and systems affect the project and -at just exterior material . If over emphasis is placed on initial cost, maximum space, minimal quality materials and reduced mechanical and electrical systems, long range dissatisfaction of the project is often experienced. t I I Page 4 A. Cost Analysis (partial listing of representative projects) I . Bid Date Area Cost Update 10179 Bid 9/80 (+12%) Golden Valley Middle School1965 $22.00 s.f. $64.00 s.f. 71.00 s.f. Richfield East Pool 1975 40.00/s.f. 62.00/s.f. 70.00/s.f. Richfield West Pool 1975 44.00/s.f. 68.00/s.f. 76.00/s.f. Jackson Pool 1976 46.00/s.f. 68.00/s.f. 76.00/s.f. Roosevelt Pool 1978 57.00/s.f. 73.00/s.f. 82.00/s.f. New Ulm Pool 1978 68.00/s.f. 87.00/s.f. 96.00/s.f. Menomonie Pool/Fieldhouse 1978 34.00/s.f. 43.00/s.f. 48.00/s.f. Hopkins Activity Structure 1976 18.00/s.f. 26.00/s.f. 30.00/s.f. New Ulm Arena 1980 54.00/s•.f. 58,00/s.f. (+8%) (w/o racquetball courts exercise, entry, excessive subsoil correction) ro B. Analysis by Comparison with Actual Projects (costs projected to Sept. 1980) (1) Assume New Ulm Arena (delete racquetball courts, exercise room, entry, office, public toilets, skate changing rooms and mechanical. Building area - 32,400 s.f. x $58.00 = $1,880,000 (does not include parkin lot, dashers, bleachers Exterior wall material: rick and rock face block Assume Jackson Pool - 20,000 s.f. x $76.00/s.f. = 1,520,000 Construction Cost Total = $3,400,000 Exterior wall material: Brick (2) Assume Menomonie Pool/Fieldhouse (122' x 208' x 34') Building area - (51,000 + 2,000) x $48.00/sq. ft. _ $2,544,000 Ice Refrigeration 250,000 Construction Cost Total $2,794,000 - Does not include parking, bleachers or dashers - Connected to existing utilities and heating - Exterior wal I material is insulated pre-cast concrete panels (3) Assume an arena similar to the Hopkins Activity Structure (122' x 2209 Building area - arena - 27,000 s.f. x $30 00/s.f. = $ 810,000 Support Facilities - 5,000 x $40.00/s.f. 200,000 Ice Refrigeration 250,000 Assume Richfield East Pool 20,000 x $70.00/s.f. 1,400,000 Construction Cost $2,660,000 - does not include parking, bleachers, dashers - both projects connected to existing boiler/utilities Exterior wall material: metal panels, concrete, concrete block on arena and brick on pool. Page 5 C. Anticipated Program to Meet Budget of $2,250,000 (assumed construction cost) Note - Cost for lengthy runs to city utilities not included - Architectural fees not included - Cost of lengthy connecting link nor impact of direct connection to existing facilities not included - Does not include: parking lot/driveway, unusual sub soil bearing conditions, dashers, bleachers, expense of building into hillside, cost for new heating plant- Minimal Program 6 lane pool kno spectator seating) 6,200 sq. ft. men/women locker rooms, showers, storage 3,700 office 300 mechanical ventilation 1,500 filter 1,000 circulation 2,200 Pool Sub Total 14,900 sq. ft. arena - 500 seating (112 x 218) 24,400 ice resurfacing 800 skate changing rooms 1,200 office 400 toi lets 600 mechanical ventilation 1,700 circulation 1,000 Arena Sub Total 30,100 sq. ft. �._. New Facility Total 45,000 sq. ft. Estimated construction costs: Pool unit - 14,900 sq. ft. x $72.00/sq. ft. $1,072,000 Arena unit - 30, 100 sq. ft. x $44.00/sq. ft. 1,324,400 Ice Refrigeration 250,000 Construction Cost Total $2,647,200 r Page 6 V. FEE Our fee for Architects and Engineers services is based on our philosophy of "completeness and excellence" in service and design. It covers all of the traditional services of schematic design, design development, contract documents, bidding and construction phases of your project. In addition to. these normal services, we also include an extensive service in research and programming and master planning of your project through in-depth meetings and involvement with you. The following are guidelines that we would use to establish the basis percentage fee: The basis fee for the project would be seven percent (7%) of the total construction cost: The fee is divided into the following phases: - Preliminary Design Phase 15% x 7% = 1.05% - Design Development Phase 20% x 7% = 1 .40% - Construction Documents Phase 40% x 7% = 2.80% - Bidding Phase 5% x 7% = 1.35% " - Construction Phase 20% x 7% = 1.40% 7.00% The Standard AIA B141 Contract would be utilized for Architect and Engineers Services. r HGA Hammel Green and Abrahamson Inc.Architects&Engineers 2675 University Ave.,St.Paul,Minnesota 55114 612/646 7501 6 February 1980 Eden Prairie Community Center Committee c/o Robert A. Lambert Director of Community Services 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Lambert and Committee Members: We at HGA are truly pleased to have this opportunity to present to the Eden Prairie community our qualifications for your proposed Community Center. We wish to assure you of our total commitment to serve you to our best ability. You will find us responsive, creative, and perceptive. Our experience with both ice arenas and swimming pools make us well qualified for this project. We are particularI roud of the latest energy- saving technology on our recent projects: the so ar collection system which heats the Willmar pool ; the heat recovery system currently being installed at the Apple Valley Arena; and the heat recovery system developed for the pool at Rochester Southeast Junior High. Budget and timetable are a major concern on all of our projects. We can produce a cost effective building within your timetable by working with you to determine economical alternatives on each step of the design process. Our compensation for professional services is both competitive and negotiable. For your preliminary budget planning, we propose a percentage of construction cost ranging between 6.4% - 6.8%, based on the AIA Standard Form of Agreement. Programming consultation would be provided on an hourly basis. We are eager for the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you would like any additional information about our firm and our experiences with similar projects, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely yours, Wesley E rensen Partner WES:mt I -6� COMMUNITY CENTER COMMITTEE - 10:45 P.M. Following the presentations by the four architectural firms the Committee met to make their recommendation to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Lambert reported that he had made phone calls on the personal references of each of the four firms. BWBR - Burnsville Ice Arena - pleased Wilmar - Generally satified - some change orders were needed. Smiley Glotter Associates - St. Louis Park - Fairly well pleased, esthetically pleasing design, energy and maintenance good. Did not come in on budget. Green Hammel and Abrahamson, Inc. - Apple Valley - excellent, well organized. Armstrong, Torseth, Skold and Rydeen, Inc. - New Ulm - Good professional organization Menomonie - professional firm met projected cost and time frame. CRichfield - impressed Each one of the references invited the committee to visit their facilities. At this point, the committee discussed the presenations given by the four architectural firms. Johnson felt the committee had to decide which one of the firms would do the best job. He leaned toward the honesty of the ATSR firm. Osterholt questioned whether or not the committee needed more information from the four firms to make a decision. The committee felt it was not necessary to meet again. Anderson felt that just because a firm was small that does not mean they cannot do quality work. Johnson questioned whether the committee was looking for the firm that has the most flexibility. Buretta felt we needed a firm with creativity. Richard Anderson felt the committee should decide what they can live with and then go back and talk to the architects. Osterholt would like two firms to recommend to the City Council. The committee cast a vote and the two top firms were: Smiley 4 votes and ATSR 2 votes. R. Anderson - ASTR Johnson - ASTR Buretta - Smiley Glotter Associates Wigen - Smiley Glotter Associates Shaw - Smiley Glotter Associates Lambert - Smiley Glotter Associates Osterholt - BWBR Respectfully Submitted, Marlys Dahl is is AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1980 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL I. Approval of Agenda and Other Items of Business II. Report on Bond Sale III. Review of Architects Proposals and Recommendations from Community Center Committee and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission A. Review unapproved minutes of February 6, 1980 meeting of Community Center Committee and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission B. Review of letters from architects responding to question concerning cost of the facility IV. Report on Sewer and Water Service Availability to Community Center V. Adjournment t N moy s er— to m m— •v a.M'�o A HPI9 ^ � � O Ot H V A n ffYJJ A O' In j •1 f9 O n O •e1 � O O NH A n S� A A A N C H IO...>•N H yy Tl rn•I y O in IPiI :� :�' •� .H.1 C `C � H 7 a? w w to a \J U '^ IOii W !9 M n �p ap O•W n t O T n A N N M � �Tl N �i Rj i ` O M n M[1 O a W ti 7'n on w M a uCdi �N9 1"N� m N n '•i •• y q n u n O W n O' A a `OC > an.•P M n �.O °.G ti n w• 'ta •i .:{ A O O •S S IY A M O O• •i m a H w n H 970 u •Otl 7 B'p tY le n a m o w to m S r••y .y CL M o G 1°M•M f0o pSpII O C tl M San a'0. m n IOi� OCi n O • H B O O.0. o c n o o 0 o rr.•. m e a' CoC o'< I9 �P � 7 N L.^ `G 7 .uG r.O � 7.�+•L °.S n .O+ n Ot m Oo w °y tY r.y .°. �•A ° M H o W n III .. p n 7' y .° W N SA n O•n Wy 7 .90 n A n O S . O O i9 a n B N O r O w w m n pni• y a 19 ry M3 0°•°a a A n o Fj la n © 8 N O O M n M M to n n•O n N .O •n 4 A A t7 2 t(1 p O. O. n .11 w O w S w O n O O r gry S w q C O In �fy9 O o a .•i O H tS r/O 7 N H M .N Mgr ��yi 09 fry9 N n�Wn•• `C H H 0o O .(�--f�••71 \ N N 1-• 0.N N /<9 0. o n B A QO a N w Tail D M• S a O'° ✓' A N A N cI o Iar $ a o w tTw n.f • Ir'rl i+ C H 0. .nw.. 0. n r•ant'n IB9 In m ~ �° 0. n H �• � � n. tM9 17 :s Y. M M < n A °�• • b `J P. W N o n 6 o n c N 7 y H � I R H C n O n m O C N = B 'd m rnr � ° n G.a'd M�nw ftN(9 YI H 9�a9 w O M tr H A S 'O S O 1°il O HI fni •O 'd n M• n OO n-I, H ° H H r•. 7 n B g n n t0 A no.NS �gH1.. I a. r n In 1° N S n p Y o•M d o n p m a'r M O n p1 n a «M.q••n'7 C'ol '�'g � yy11 u M w M A to m^•a to f! . >•g O .°.H O S O G N S 7 a R H O H A B s! -i In u•t~9 m Pa n u n a°r�' rui o .�..m n o.o re w o x• ono w u I9 1+n m m oy 2 x ° o nv S..0 r nn woov A� A Hno nH °'no.w .cep � oo.nwnn ;° o oa .a•. � I 1 � o •oo •nwco � N o •z �• ° oa a'o 9onuH a ^ ..n H.of M S f] H N 90 fA B a In O N n C 7 n .0.. u n o..�... n O n w n M r+ I°M..S N. a O.n 'f U A O M 7.N O.� w 0 M n EI N H S A W ��.••.. p• n n n o w tr n C n N A�p 7 M n N n n O. C a n.yy < n o n W C H O n o 6. O fMD N Sl..en •.�' .1'..'n 6 '� C ton SR w •a..•9BO'N SS°9�o n N7 B O r jr• .C..• O r.•O O O'O M I••' a O 1+. M pyyyC�•••.da N.O.a'm`S (99 NO Gal'6 n n n M n t7 n 1+„ r� 7 n rY.1 fSa n W ear v H O n S tS9 N H a - N 'NO It W to C H O O n •° a S 19 n `i S N g�g A n C/1 'a n S�'1• •ta N f9 O O •O•.6. N Imo+• O M A O n M M H L 91 A t] d p R.n 0. IC..•'d O a 0 O L O P. S O M M L O Iy C n n O p n 0 7 tY ti Y n S 4 N C. iY O 7 S o H fY r C• •W S c n n o o n a o.n w w n .�..•m n a �• o n d o �' oar w r.a o w n.-S •t>to.•o o. o. o L o a o•'g n o EA a B N •M M n C n n t9 n FC„B n a P ^ •M n n A P W .^ nn n I. "m w n na v Hn5' H M n - n o L w :° oa tr°'a w 0o nry •': o w o•o npp ...'� >• 2•,' m� m ao� '°c to o nn° P .ai o o• S.°y M•N M W n w S n ti u [1 n rw1 p,p•S n H o R O n IK 'rJ N 7 N �" o a, nm It Ao y'O � ° n noo n nwuaa. o'm Io'•n Gs' to roi y u M Q.S u n a 7 u N ? w m t n .y� w O.O.? O.O. W S N a n O• H`C S M to O n G O r0 ry yl g n S a S a n to n H`C O I gg to m fin• S r. n O' d p O n n S W n N w O n 10 N K n o N. .9tt C o.o pn n w, t N n Ot a O !1 w �nn9 M S n r. A n u w o n S Cy roi O n 0. ?"'+ 8 7 rP..O ry.O A M• M � O. 19 n 0at O M I••'n w tgg9 M I N p 10 !1 H S M tT�w.n N.roOp n G �'O O n..p W 00 a-• B offo N N W M .^...O O ?O �'M O O .'..�' N M S ID H y 0 8•'K 0 0 7.O O N A W P. O M 1 a n O .••O O ••1 "n w the n Ir [.O 7 T a 9V ►• O fl n R A n y tn0 A ° 7� W n R O A M 0V W u H O 7 Q r� M Y, < C n n n o w S n r0.•O 7' n�j ry M w 'N 90 n H p. N 1+•n n$ R O 7 �_ 0.0 i.�.�..o.� T MO MN Sn 7 .� A w O < •w7 O t91+N E. '•na �H'< O`< n•°-. 1+.S rw1 S nt n N a N tq M M u 7 III a .d-.n I9 u ? o n t9 A N O yl w N n o o• .+ro a o la o. g •a• Iny U. FH•� 5 o o--'n y m n mo•w n n B u 1S! 7 y A O 1( Y w�` n G N `n H•a n n L 7 r'q r-• A n w. y ,p M.. O H O �• H n n O`R W O p• a �1 O N C H N f<9 •O ~• 7 S N V C rwa �a M r 0=0 H C fy N•f9 n< mn 7 �Qf. O m m x S n to O H n P. Q N O O H <'< 7 .0.+• n w .+ �n tu•. nn � mw Yo m a na n o• g•� nu < •C119wI�D I�ro r90 n~3 �• n �C1j n of le n In < u •n o n o° o °n x„° d ° n In 7 n •.. u o vn o• A •i'e o' M rr H o n o a m , .+ .a an Ino en' o a^ o• n .o o. N N n o ro I,;n n n. %n r :i � . uung..l tcr... .Co n o '� n n :. ::d n N n 9 w°.•o• °a. O O n d n C n O . O •C Y p t0 w M t1A af"•. n O n o 5 0•�n1j_9n o n S n O FOi • J � � O �a •�., SN p 0 0 666 M U pq, 1• C q Y t. ✓G 'dON A qa h•n•~P• O N A M N q aJ A u "i ?�. O••y M 4 V•.Oi L �• d C CO•-. ♦pa 00 qd C""� V•r 3 N 0 ..Ci g N 0 Y H•ti ' M q 6 O w '� L n U U Y.-• O•O Q N J O O F N d F 0 H w Ol F d 0 U M •O Fni N N C Y q LL d M O J: O O r N W Y Cl f+ •,a w C N U Id o {+• n d^J 2 F•Ti H d U.N u •..0 u d M A ♦a.0 M Y O I N H M d••y V 4 f• � V n .a •p d Y T ti pp�j� s b f n a~+ L � d 0 ~ N~ K H `•x A Y m b OM d C O pp Y .ti M JU-N G. tJ o O 0 N [7 0 '7 U0.HA asn NAnN O �. C F19Ur M'd0 Y id U O a'~ � nyi d U a FC' N O O M •� � n '- F• •Vp F , J v�i N O'a+ .0 � d Lf T•L M q 6l .0 O w O M .. N u •� 'g1 •s O V 0. M L « n A F V) q q y N > n N F L JI u N • U d 1 '� N C4 N O G O N 10 A n q q N d N 0 o H w W tdnA~ C a Uq Rn a•d 9 F F+ a w w N F Y a q tJ .+ A o ao / y, qN Oy NOL•AU �a M w«Y n W �+ NT A .0.Ci0 D M V d d IY V T qq.MI F 1©� C i O OC ..i•M n 01.M O LY �{i•�-. H.G �M.O � PC 4 OL